ArticleEpilepsia2026
Effectiveness and implementation of an inpatient mental health care pathway at an epilepsy center: A prospective service evaluation.
Article in Epilepsia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis hybrid study assessed the implementation and clinical effectiveness of a structured mental health care workflow for epilepsy.
methodsEligible inpatients were screened systematically. Patients with scores above cutoff scores underwent structured diagnostic interviews followed by a multi-component psychotherapeutic intervention (one or two sessions) aiming to develop a personalized treatment plan. Follow-up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months assessed treatment plan adherence and reliable change indices (RCIs) of outcomes (self-reported depressive and anxiety symptoms, health-related quality of life, work and social adjustment). Implementation was assessed through initial step penetration, fidelity of workflow execution, and diagnostic/therapeutic yields (appropriateness).
resultsOf 345 inpatients with epilepsy, 210 were eligible and 202 entered screening. Neurocognitive and linguistic deficits were the most important reasons that only 59% of all inpatients completed the screening procedure. The workflow was implemented with high fidelity (96% across all steps) and proved clinically appropriate for the population, with one in five screened patients with epilepsy receiving a psychiatric diagnosis and a personalized treatment plan based on the brief, tailored psychotherapeutic intervention (n = 41). Fifteen of these patients (37%) had not been diagnosed previously. After 12 months, 17 patients (41%) were lost to follow-up; this group showed significantly higher baseline depression scores. Of the 24 patients with complete follow-up data, 17 (71%) had initiated the recommended treatment. Eleven of those who had started treatment (65%) showed reliable improvements in at least one outcome, whereas no improvements were observed in non-adherent patients. SIGNIFICANCE: The integrated workflow was implemented with high fidelity and was associated with promising outcomes. However, the findings highlight the need for structural reforms to improve access and effectiveness for patients with cognitive impairment, language barriers, and severe depressive symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.